Question

Which of the following does not fall under the framework of presumption under Section 2 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

• A. Unassailable proof
• B. Shall presume
• C. Conclusive proof
• D. May be

Hint:

The three pillars of presumption in the BSA are "May," "Shall," and "Conclusive." If you see "Unassailable," it's an intruder—not a defined category in the law!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 organises presumptions into a deliberately small, closed set of categories, because how strongly a court is required to accept a fact as true has real consequences for a trial, and the legislature wanted that strength to be graded clearly rather than left open-ended.

At the lowest rung sits "may presume," which leaves the court free to either treat a fact as established or to ask for more proof before doing so; this is a discretionary presumption. One step up is "shall presume," which takes away that discretion and requires the court to treat the fact as proved unless the other side manages to disprove it; this is a mandatory but rebuttable presumption. At the top is "conclusive proof," where the law simply forecloses the question, one fact being declared conclusive proof of another means no evidence disproving the second fact will even be entertained.

"Unassailable proof" does not belong to this scheme at all. It is not a phrase the Act defines or uses anywhere in Section 2, and it does not correspond to any of the three recognised grades of presumption. Because the question asks which option falls outside this closed, defined framework, and the other three options map directly onto "may presume," "shall presume," and "conclusive proof" respectively, "unassailable proof" is the term that does not belong.

So the option that does not fall under the presumption framework of Section 2 is unassailable proof.

Answer 2

Another way to check this is to imagine trying to locate each term in the actual text of Section 2, since three of the options should point straight to specific statutory language while one should not appear at all.

1. Shall presume: Searching the Act's definitions turns up this exact phrase, defined as requiring the court to regard a fact as proved unless it is disproved. It is directly traceable to statutory text.
2. Conclusive proof: This phrase is also directly traceable to the Act's definitions, describing the situation where the law forecloses any evidence to the contrary once one fact is declared conclusive proof of another.
3. May be (may presume): This too traces back to defined statutory language, describing the court's discretion to presume a fact or require further proof. All three of these terms can be located in the actual definitional text of the Act.
4. Unassailable proof: No amount of searching turns up this phrase in the Act's definitions. It simply is not part of the vocabulary the legislature used when setting out the three grades of presumption, which is why it stands apart from the other three options.

Since three of the four phrases can be traced directly to the Act's defined categories of presumption and one cannot be found anywhere in that text, the odd one out is easy to identify.

Therefore, the correct answer is Unassailable proof.